Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 264 posts

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#151

Post by TrousersHoisted »

whatamidoingyo wrote: post #79
Scubabear68 wrote: post #18

Somewhat related, I learned to be very cautious about LinkedIn and their job postings. I hit a couple that looked like regular companies and started to apply, but they were really fake job postings just go harvest your information. Even when you abort the process, it's too late. They take your info and put you on a zillion job sites automatically with endless email spam.

LinkedIn is the absolute worst. For one, there's a checkbox that is clicked by default to "Follow ", which essentially rewards a company for posting a job with thousands of followers (job applicants). I imagine most companies just want followers on LinkedIn.

LinkedIn = Facebook Pro

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#152

Post by em-bee »

sib wrote: post #110
em-bee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. if you hire rarely, same thing, if you can demonstrate that it takes a long time to find the right candidate. or, you could be requested to pause posts. to handle a possible confusion about multiple listings, each job could have some kind…

>> if you fail to find a candidate then you will easily be able to demonstrate that the candidate suing you for violating the law was not qualified and therefore has no reason to sue. Umm, no? There are plenty of times when I've had roles posted that we interviewed candidates who met the written requirements (e.g., degrees, years of experience, etc) but did not pass our interview loops. It's very hard to prove a nega…

if they passed the written requirements you should have interviewed them. if not, why didn't you and why would you then be claiming that you can't find anyone? if you did interview them and they failed, then you have all the proof you need.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#153

Post by TrousersHoisted »

gosub100 wrote: post #39
Scubabear68 wrote: post #18

Somewhat related, I learned to be very cautious about LinkedIn and their job postings. I hit a couple that looked like regular companies and started to apply, but they were really fake job postings just go harvest your information. Even when you abort the process, it's too late. They take your info and put you on a zillion job sites automatically with endless email spam.

I still won't forgive them for the incident circa 2012 where they were sending out emails from your email account to everyone in your address book or recent contacts list in your own voice (!!) saying "hi $name, I joined linked in come network with me!".

Years later, Pinterest repeated this offense.

And years after that, NextDoor did... and even used physical mail to spam people's real neighbors using the "inviting" user's name. Despicable, and even potentially dangerous in these sad times of polarized and unhinged trash.

Oh yeah... NextDoor also exposed people's exact physical addresses to all users by default for a year or two. I mean... that's just inexcusable and deliberate irresponsibility.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#154

Post by araes »

xp84 wrote: post #139
tptacek wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are rules like this in other countries around the world, and the impact is that it's much harder to change full-time jobs, because companies work around them by replacing full-time roles with contract positions, something that's much harder to regulate. But the big thing here is: obviously there's a cheering section for any rules that make things harder for hiring managers, because most people here are on the o…

I completely agree that there isn't any legislation that will "fix this problem" (other than perhaps abolition of H1B). If it helps soothe the feelings of those who think hiring managers are demon spawn out to get them, I can add, as one of those who spent a whole season this year doing basically nothing but conducting first-round interviews all day, to hire four open SWE seats, it's misery out here for us, too. It w…

> people sending ringers to do their coding exercises for them including different ringers or two ringers at once (oops)

Found this part mildly fascinating. That it's more lucrative for a significant portion of the population to be so highly skilled at programming that they can regularly serve as "ringers" to falsify entrance exams, than it is to simply complete such an exam and get a job in America. Must make great money as exam falsifiers.

Quick check on Google says it runs upwards of ₹50,000 ($570) for valuable falsifications (data is mostly from Indian exam falsification though). If you can actually manage to get one per day it's $200,000 USD in India.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#155

Post by guywithahat »

Zigurd wrote: post #96
guywithahat wrote: post #5

If the number is only 17%, I'm not sure we need to ban them. From my experience the big issue is hiring managers who either 1) are very casual about hiring (i.e. they're willing to wait 6 months and waste everyone's time), or 2) people who like the idea of hiring but keep changing what they want to hire for (like this month we're having issues with testing, so we want a test engineer, but next month we're having issu…

This "a senior engineer with direct experience for <140k" is a fake job.

For the last few months when I go on linkedin I'm spammed with a position out of CA who wants someone with 8+ years experience, in a C-tier CA desert city, for 80-110k. They've had it listed as "urgently hiring" for about 3 months now

We pay junior engineers more than 80k, and that's to live in a nicer, lower tax area. I hope they don't find someone and have to urgently hire a contractor with a clearance for $300 an hour

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#156

Post by t-writescode »

bill_joy_fanboy wrote: post #113
Group_B wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not every company is some large mega corp

They all want to be, though. All business want to be big-time like Amazon, but not all of them are so lucky. I don't understand the making of excuses for small businesses as though they are somehow morally better than large businesses. Every business owner, regardless of the size of the business, wants free labor.

> Every business owner, regardless of the size of the business, wants free labor.

Yeah, no.

I’m no longer an entrepreneur - ran out of runway - but it was always my goal to have aggressive profit sharing as part of my company. Acceptable salaries - years of those salaries saved “in the bank” and profit-share the rest.

I never wanted free labor. In fact, the reason I didn’t have employees is because I couldn’t afford them at the rate they deserved. People deserve to be treated as people. People deserve to be treated well.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#157

Post by edoceo »

Natsu wrote: post #111
sokoloff wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tax things we want people to do all the time . We want people to buy things, yet we have sales taxes. We want people to work productive jobs and earn money, yet we have income taxes.

To refute the parent, you have to argue that it's a good idea, not just that it's done. It's not hard to find plenty of things that people do which are terrible ideas.

Alcohol Tax, Nicotine Tax. Good taxes on bad things.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#159

Post by whatamidoingyo »

TrousersHoisted wrote: post #151
whatamidoingyo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LinkedIn is the absolute worst. For one, there's a checkbox that is clicked by default to "Follow ", which essentially rewards a company for posting a job with thousands of followers (job applicants). I imagine most companies just want followers on LinkedIn.

LinkedIn = Facebook Pro

Agreed. I meant that the follow button is on each job application, by the way. It's too late to edit.

Re: Proposal to Ban Ghost Jobs

#160

Post by gruez »

spaceguillotine wrote: post #77
DelightOne wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making people able to sue for anyone feeling bad about not having gotten the job is a path you should not take. We have something similar in Germany and its horrible for companies. Leeches bleeding you dry.

i'm so glad that companies don't have feelings tho. Would you mind sharing with everyone else what you are talking about, its very vague with the descriptor of "something similar" doubly questionable with you use of calling humans leeches, when the only leeches i've seen in the business world were the companies that require labor to make money and then pay back a less than equitable amount to the people doing work.

>i'm so glad that companies don't have feelings tho.

Nobody is concerned about companies being sad, they're concerned about making the labor market in an give jurisdiction hostile enough that companies opt out entirely.

>when the only leeches i've seen in the business world were the companies that require labor to make money and then pay back a less than equitable amount to the people doing work.

define "equitable".

Post reply on HN